from the you-only-need-to-find-one dept

Last year, dating site Match.com threatened some rivals, saying that the numbers they put out concerning marketing probably couldn't be supported, and ordering them to cease and desist with misleading claims. Of course, all that really did was make a lot of people turn around and look more closely at Match.com's own claims, which seemed only fair. I have no idea if this latest story is a result of some of that scrutiny, but a class action lawsuit has been filed against Match.com by users of the service who claimed that the company was quite misleading with its own stats. Of specific concern is the actual number of users touted by Match, who (the plaintiffs claim) leaves "dead" accounts on the system just so it can boost its numbers. Also, there are claims that many of the profiles are fakes, using images of porn actresses, models, or people from other dating sites (though, if accurate, this could just be the work of spammers, rather than Match itself). Separately, there are claims that just as accounts are about to expire, members get a notice that someone wants to contact them -- but they have to renew their subscription to respond. Except, when they do renew, it turns out that the person who wanted to contact them has disappeared. All that does seem a bit sneaky, if true.

from the watch-who-you-sue dept

Facebook, like many growing Silicon Valley companies, has not been known to use patents for offensive purposes, but the company has now filed its first patent infringement lawsuit. However, this is really a defensive strike, as it's a countersuit against Phoenix Media, publisher of the Boston Phoenix, an alt-weekly publication. Apparently Phoenix sued Facebook last year over a patent (6,253,216) on "providing a personal profile page" (stop laughing -- it's really been patented).

As the article notes, Facebook has been sued about 15 times for patent infringement, and has (so far) refused to settle any cases. In most cases, the lawsuits are by patent holding companies, so there's nothing to sue them back over. However, since this is an actual operating company, Facebook has launched its countersuit, suing for patent infringement over two patents that it acquired from other companies recently. It's nice to see Facebook pushing back against those who sue it over silly patents. It will be worth watching to see if it continues to be aggressive against such bogus threats.

from the if-you-intimidate,-please-be-real dept

The latest in a long line of questionable "cyberbullying" legislation has shown up in Texas, where the legislature has approved a bill that would make it a felony to create a fake social networking profile with intent to "harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten" anyone. Of course, that seems rather broad. Oddly, the article doesn't mention the Lori Drew case (Update: actually, it does mention Lori Drew at the bottom... but says this law wouldn't apply, because it only applies to fake profiles of "real people"), though, it does mention the Tony La Russa/Twitter legal battle, even though it's difficult to think any court would rule a parody profile as being with intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten. Of course, even if the bill is signed into law, Eric Goldman notes that it would likely have trouble surviving much of a challenge, pointing out the oddity of singling out "social networking sites" and (more importantly) the fact that any such law would likely ban all sorts of protected free speech. Still, "anti-cyberbullying" laws are all the rage these days, and politicians want to make sure they can tell constituents that they're out there "protecting the children," so expect to see plenty more of this type of legislation.

from the please-explain dept

I am not currently a Netflix customer, but one of the features of the service that I thought was quite useful (and I know plenty of people who use it actively) was the "profiles" feature that let a single family/household set up separate queues of movies they wanted. So, for example, a husband, wife and kids could each get their own list of movies with separate logins, rather than having to manage a single queue. This made the service a lot more useful for a household. And yet... Netflix is eliminating the feature, and doing so with the bizarre Orwellian explanation:

Why? While it may be disappointing to see this feature go away, this change will help us to continue to improve the Netflix website for all our customers.

Can someone explain how eliminating a feature that many people use improves the Netflix website? You see, Netflix, if you're going to remove a feature and say that the website is better because of it, it would actually help if you explained how or why it's better (i.e., you're replacing that feature with something better). To simply say that removing a well-liked feature makes the website better without any further explanation, you're basically calling your customers stupid because you think they'll believe what's clearly bogus.

from the nobody-knows-you're-a-dog dept

Now that online dating has become commonplace, would-be suitors are having a hard time making themselves seem interesting in an increasingly large dating pool. So, what to do if your own interests and achievements are boring and average? Well, just borrow the good bits of the exciting profiles that you find, and add them to your own. Apparently, these acts of profile plagiarism are fairly commonplace now amongst the online dating set. When people find well-written, exciting descriptions, they grab them for their own profiles. Unfortunately for the daters, eventually, a real-world meeting delivers a product that the marketing has misrepresented, and disappointment usually results. Although in some cases, it's possible to track down the "original" author, most origins are fairly difficult to trace -- surely more than one person enjoys "long walks on the beach."

from the they're-saving-it-for-when-you-realize-what-a-huge-mistake-you-made dept

On Friday, we jokingly noted that Bill Gates was erasing his Facebook profile. However, the NY Times is now reporting on just how difficult it actually is to erase your profile on the site. Basically, you can "deactivate" it, but it still exists and can be found by users of the service. Of course, some might argue that it's rather silly to try to delete anything once you've put it online, and that counts for social networking profiles as well as other content.